Pope Benedict admits evidence for evolution

[Orogeny]

Due to the flood mentioned in the Bible, I think the dating method is not accurate.

That is not a reason to reject dating methods any more than Joshua 10:12-13 is a reason to accept geocentrism. In fact, since it clearly states that the sun was stopped, geocentrism actually has a basis in scripture and I’m not sure why you don’t accept it. Even if a global flood as described in Genesis occurred (and it didn’t), that in no way invalidates current dating methods.

Also, polystrate trees going through multiple layers indicates they were buried rapidly, making the layers not as old as claimed.

No, it only means that the layers were deposited over a short period of time. Do you believe that geologists think that each and every layer of rock takes millions of years to be deposited? If so, stop arguing geology now because it is not doing your position any good.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Sometimes engineers make a best guess. It’s called managing your assumptions. Evolution scientists do not do a very good job of managing their assumptions. But if nothing that is substantial depends upon you work you wouldn’t take the time to manage your assumptions either. Theories have assumptions and evolution has more than I can bear.

That only means that you don’t understand the science behind evolution.

Peace

Tim

 

[steveandersen]

How could you have a fact of a process without a valid mechanism?

Easily

Take gravity for example
We can observe the fact:
Teacups fall off desks when pushed, planets circle stars, etc
we understand the effects of gravity with every step we take

But we have no real good mechanism for the observations
Is it instantaneous or does it have to move through space like light?
How does gravity propagate?
Is there a graviton analogous to a photon?

There are lots of things that we observe occurring that we may not have figured out all the details to yet.

Evolution is a theoretical process of how humans came into existence? Human existence is a fact but the process on how we got here including evolution is not.

Yes and no
The biochemical and genetic data shows that we did indeed evolve
The theory is that natural selection was the mechanism.

Since we are so gulable that we believe everything the world says without asking inteligent questions we need Pope Leo XII’s and St. Augustine’s rule on the study of Sacred Scripture. I’m sticking with them. When the process of evolution is proven I’ll throw out the literal and obvious meaning is Genesis.

As you are entitled to. (I will ignore the jibe about being gullible)
As long as you do not tell others that it is necessary.

A glib response is that proof is for liquor and math not biology

But a more thoughtful response is what would you consider “proof”

Most of us aren’t technical experts (or if we are we are always limited in what fields we are knowledgeable in) and for most things in life we take the word of those who have taken the time to specialize (just as we expect people to take our own work in things we have specialized in)

I’m not quite sure why this issue out of all the technical fields gives pause to so many.

 

[Steve40]

The fact is that biological organisms are all related genetically; the explanatory theory is that we have descended with modification from common ancestry. You may be confusing fact and theory.
Peter

Commonality does not prove common decent. To assume otherwise is faulty logic.

 

[steveandersen]

That is absolutely true, and they were right!! They didn’t know how old, but they knew it was old. The evidence was obvious even back then.

Peace

Tim

Now be honest Tim. The earliest geologist (and other diggers in the dirt like archeologist and anthropologist) did indeed assume a young earth at the start until the data got a little too much to ignore.

Contrary to what some might suggest Blessed Steno did not set out to describe a world without God or impose an atheistic ideology on the world.

 

[Orogeny]

Now be honest Tim. The earliest geologist (and other diggers in the dirt like archeologist and anthropologist) did indeed assume a young earth at the start until the data got a little too much to ignore.

Contrary to what some might suggest Blessed Steno did not set out to describe a world without God or impose an atheistic ideology on the world.

Nope, sorry Steve, ole’ Steno made up the evidence solely to set the table for Darwin. That’s pretty obvious. How else could he have missed the obvious conclusion that marine fossils found at the top of mountains were deposited there by Noah’s flood?

Peace

Tim

 

[edwest2]

Trying to promote a mechanistic and atheistic viewpoint does appear to be the reason for some of the posts.

Although there may be no explanation for gravity per se, anyone can observe its effects. Not so with evolution.

The obvious question to ask is why do so many come here to convince Christians about evolution? There is clearly the promotion of a natural, mechanistic worldview. You and I are mere biological mechanisms created by nothing.

The one thing people also ignore when quoting various Church leaders about evolution is that for the Church, some points are non-negotiable. Man was created by God to have communion with Him.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Steve40]

Easily

Take gravity for example
We can observe the fact:
Teacups fall off desks when pushed, planets circle stars, etc
we understand the effects of gravity with every step we take

But we have no real good mechanism for the observations
Is it instantaneous or does it have to move through space like light?
How does gravity propagate?
Is there a graviton analogous to a photon?

There are lots of things that we observe occurring that we may not have figured out all the details to yet.

Yes and no
The biochemical and genetic data shows that we did indeed evolve
The theory is that natural selection was the mechanism.

As you are entitled to. (I will ignore the jibe about being gullible)
As long as you do not tell others that it is necessary.

A glib response is that proof is for liquor and math not biology

But a more thoughtful response is what would you consider “proof”

Most of us aren’t technical experts (or if we are we are always limited in what fields we are knowledgeable in) and for most things in life we take the word of those who have taken the time to specialize (just as we expect people to take our own work in things we have specialized in)

I’m not quite sure why this issue out of all the technical fields gives pause to so many.

I don’t see evolution occurring. It is not observable or repeatable.

Most technical experts may have believed the earth was flat and the days of that theory are over. Evolution’s time is coming to an end as well.

This is not a technical field it is a religious and ideological one. If we do not take God at His Word on how we were created and believe theoretical guesses we may misunderstand the meaning of human existence. The meaning of human existence is in crisis because we disregard the meaning in the mechanism of procreation and I would add because we disregard the meaning in original creation.

By the rule of Pope Leo XIII and St. Augustine we are required to hold to the literal and obvious meaning of Sacred Scripture including Genesis. Those who do not are knowingly or unknowingly disobeying the guidance of the Holy Spirit through the Magisterium of the Church. Unfortunately we all feel the results of this error and disobedience.

 

[Orogeny]

Although there may be no explanation for gravity per se, anyone can observe its effects. Not so with evolution.

Not true. You just deny that is what you are observing.

The obvious question to ask is why do so many come here to convince Christians about evolution? There is clearly the promotion of a natural, mechanistic worldview. You and I are mere biological mechanisms created by nothing.

I won’t speak for anyone else, but that’s not what I have ever said. You are the one who seems to insist that it is an either/or proposition. I absolutely disagree. It is a BOTH proposition. God created us (and everything). He used evolution for life.

The one thing people also ignore when quoting various Church leaders about evolution is that for the Church, some points are non-negotiable. Man was created by God to have communion with Him.

Acceptance of evolution is not one of those non-negotiable items.

Peace

Tim

 

[steveandersen]

…The obvious question to ask is why do so many come here to convince Christians about evolution? …

I come here because I get tired of skeptical and atheist web sites that constantly try to belittle Christians as some sort of superstitious luddites.

Catholicism has a long and glorious history supporting the natural sciences. We’re the people that gave the world the renaissance after all.

And I think that it is part of good apologetics to tell the world what Catholics actually believe and what our contribution to the world has been.

So those of us with a technical bend can laugh in the face of skeptics who say “You’re a Christian? How can you think the world is only 6,000 years old?”

And I hope that those who don’t care for or understand evolution can pick up enough here so that they can avoid the traps that the skeptics set out. As you can see in this thread things can get very hot with many posts flying back and forth. And this is a friendly site that is moderated for charity. Imagine what it is like out there on the web or in a bar, or at the diner table with that difficult cousin.

If you have theological problems with evolution stick to those and avoid contrary naturalistic explanations. It is too easy to get side tracked on stratigraphy, dating techniques, micro-biology, etc. Then your point is lost in the chatter.

 

[edwest2]

Well, only you appear to be taking my words a certain way. Like I wrote earlier, based on my reading of the evidence, everyone is a biological mechanism whose ony purpose is to survive long enough to pass on our genes. That’s it.

God has told all Christians a little different in regard to our function in life.

God bless,
Ed

 

[steveandersen]

I don’t see evolution occurring.

Do you see coal beds or oil deposits forming?
It obviously happens because there are coal beds and oil deposits

Do you deny any process that occurs on a large time scale?

Would you take the word of someone who says that they see it occurring?

What if we took your DNA and your parents DNA and compared them? If that analysis showed gene sequences in you that were not present in you parents would that be enough for you?

It is not observable or repeatable. …

Well there have been observed instances of speciation both in the lab and in the wild. I’m not sure what exactly you don’t like about them.

As for repeatable. The essence of evolution is that it is linear. We can take a base population of and subject them to the same selective forces and while the results may be similar e.g. making a bug that can eat hazardous waste they will never be exactly the same. Once a population speciates or goes extinct that is it. The train has left the station never to return.
But that is what the theory predicts so it isn’t a problem.

Many sciences (those that do not lend themselves well to the bench scale) are done this way.

 

[steveandersen]

Well, only you appear to be taking my words a certain way. Like I wrote earlier, based on my reading of the evidence, everyone is a biological mechanism whose ony purpose is to survive long enough to pass on our genes. That’s it.

God has told all Christians a little different in regard to our function in life.

God bless,
Ed

That is why you don’t look to science to answer “why”
Just “how”

 

[edwest2]

And there’s that tired old slogan about the why and how.

Science interests me, evolution ideology needs to be exposed for what it is, a belief system, a naturalistic, we’re all just biological machines belief system.

God bless,
Ed

 

[drpmjhess]

I am a Catholic theologian working in a very secular environment. It pains me to see my faith (Catholicism) being dismissed as absurd or irrelevant by my colleagues who are contemptuous of the childish ignorance paraded in public by Catholic creationists. If we want our church to retain a credible voice in crucial debates over stem cell research and cloning, it is essential that we bring it into the 21st century with respect to geology and biology. All the biologists I know who are also fellow Catholics (e.g., Ken Miller, Marty Hewlett) are quite well aware that we live on an ancient and geologically dynamic planet, and that very little in biology makes sense except in light of evolution. Catholic opponents of evolution tend to be (1) non-scientists (e.g. engineers, ), or (2) people without college education, particularly in the sciences. I don’t know of any colleagues in the American Academy of Religion, or in the Catholic Theological Society of America who are Young Earth (or even Intelligent Design) Creationists.
Best wishes,
Peter

 

[edwest2]

Hello Peter,

Childish? Ignorant? I have read why the Church is against human cloning and embryonic stem cell research. It pains me that embryologists who study the human embryo are ignored by the secular world who believe, not know scientifically, that the embryo is not a human being. How can this be so? Didn’t everyone, believer or not, begin life as a human embryo? And the Church by recognizing the dignity of life from conception until natural death recognizes this.

On the other hand, the Church needs to be careful that evolution does not ignore the Creator God. If our intrinsic value is placed on the same level as an amoeba, and we are identified only as ambulatory carriers of genetic material, then to whom do we have a relationship?

Respectfully,
Ed

 

[Steve40]

Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to “intelligent design,” to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation’s public schools.

Same but opposite and back at you. My kids are out of the public schools and evolution is only one of many perverted reasons we are keeping them out. If you want the cesspool of the public school systems to indoctrinate your little followers then take them, but you’re not getting my kids and you won’t get many others. Why do you need a public school to indoctrinate in your religion? Because the only way for the evolution theology and religion to promote their ideology is to brain wash the young without question.

 

[Steve40]

I am a Catholic theologian working in a very secular environment. It pains me to see my faith (Catholicism) being dismissed as absurd or irrelevant by my colleagues who are contemptuous of the childish ignorance paraded in public by Catholic creationists. If we want our church to retain a credible voice in crucial debates over stem cell research and cloning, it is essential that we bring it into the 21st century with respect to geology and biology. All the biologists I know who are also fellow Catholics (e.g., Ken Miller, Marty Hewlett) are quite well aware that we live on an ancient and geologically dynamic planet, and that very little in biology makes sense except in light of evolution. Catholic opponents of evolution tend to be (1) non-scientists (e.g. engineers, ), or (2) people without college education, particularly in the sciences. I don’t know of any colleagues in the American Academy of Religion, or in the Catholic Theological Society of America who are Young Earth (or even Intelligent Design) Creationists.
Best wishes,
Peter

If you want to make a deal with the Devil and go with the flow then do it. But I have heard no proclamation that requires me to believe in your idiotic theory. I find it offensive that you believe a literal interpretation of Genesis is childish given the amount we do not know about origins from a scientific perspective.

Too many within the Church just want to be popular and could careless about the truth in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Let’s all just get along and believe every immoral and modernist piece of dung that the world wants to push down our throats. I don’t want to get along and I’m glad I’m making you feel uncomfortable with your friends.

You are in violation of Pope Leo XIII’s and St. Augustine’s rule on the interpretation of Sacred Scripture.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Since the charity level of this thread seems to have failed it is now closed.
MF